Tuesday, March 1, 2011

To many people both inside and outside the Movement, ISKCON’s current Guru system is a complete farce. Perhaps predictably, all the scandal, falldowns and endless self-contradiction amongst Srila Prabhupada’s wannabe successors (the 80 competing ISKCON ‘Gurus’) has opened the way for yet another personality, this time from outside ISKCON, with designs on Srila Prabhupada’s legacy.
The GBC have preached for many years that everyone must have a “living, physically present Guru” (or anyone but Srila Prabhupada), and now they are reaping their reward. His Holiness Narayana Maharaja a disciple of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrother, His Holiness Kesava Maharaja has had considerable success in attracting both ex and current members of ISKCON to his camp, by promoting his qualification as a “living, physically present Guru”, who is bona fide and won’t fall down, unlike the ISKCON Gurus.

Narayana Maharaja likes to portray himself as a mere humble servant of Srila Prabhupada, who simply wants to bring everyone to Srila Prabhupada through a deeper appreciation of his mission and teachings:

“You should know who your Prabhupada is. You should know. Then you can glorify him, otherwise you cannot.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, May 31st, 2000)

In this article we shall use Narayana Maharaja’s own words to see if he is bringing us closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Narayana Maharaja Claims To Be Srila Prabhupada’s Successor

Narayana Maharaja makes it clear that he is here not to bring people TO Srila Prabhupada, but to actually REPLACE Srila Prabhupada as his SUCCESSOR:

“I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)

Above, Narayana Maharaja boldly stakes out his pitch in direct competition with all the ISKCON Gurus who also want to succeed and replace, not complement, supplement or assist Srila Prabhupada.

Narayana Maharaja Competes Directly With Srila Prabhupada

In pursuance of the above stated aim to replace Srila Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja has urged his followers to distribute HIS books in preference to those of Srila Prabhupada:

“Now Srila Gurudeva (Narayana Maharaja) has requested that we start what he calls ‘a second revolution’ in preaching and book distribution. He wants his books distributed in the same volume, ‘not less than Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada).’”
(Gaudiya Courier, Issue 15, July 1st, 2004)

Clearly the above goal of trying to match Srila Prabhupada can only be achieved if Narayana Maharaja’s books alone are being distributed by his followers, and that is generally what is happening.

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Only Gave The “Basement”

To create the demand for his services, Narayana Maharaja claims that there is much spiritual knowledge that Srila Prabhupada failed to give, so that he can claim he has come to fill this gap:

“So Swamiji has at first cleared the atmosphere. Prepared the ground…by preaching name and the sandesh of Gita… he prepared. So very important work … so he has done this task and it was so necessary for that world…for all world…he has done but he has not done everything by doing that. It was only basement.[…] But…we are deprived of that… he could not complete his work.”
(Lecture given by Narayana Maharaja on September 19th, 1994)

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Gave Everything

That the above statement is not actually true, can again be proven by the words of Narayana Maharaja himself, who said the following 17 years earlier to Srila Prabhupada himself:

“All of your duties are completed. You have fulfilled everything in your lifetime. There is no need to worry for anything.[…] Yes, you have done everything. Nothing is left unfinished.”
(Translation of Bengali conversation between Narayana Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada from October 1977, provided by Narayana Maharaja’s own camp)

That Narayana Maharaja would go onto say the complete opposite of what he himself claimed 17 years earlier, demonstrates opportunism of the highest order.

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Is Not The Founder-Acarya Of Iskcon

This opportunism is further displayed in Narayana Maharaja’s stating that Srila Prabhupada was not the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. It is surely a redundant point that Lord Krishna (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) is the origin of all Krishna consciousness, so one wonders why Narayana Maharaja feels it so important to belittle Srila Prabhupada’s position and promote his own position by stating such an obvious point:

“Also you should know that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the founder of ISKCON. Swamiji, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja is one of the prominent acaryas in this line only. He is not founder…”
(Narayana Maharaja 28th April 1999, morning speech, Caracas, Venezuela)

“Your Prabhupada, Srila Swami Maharaja, only changed the name into English. He is not the founder acarya of that eternal ISKCON… I am ISKCON. I’m not different from ISKCON. I am ‘Bhaktivedanta’ [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son.

I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly. I am Bhaktivedanta and he is Bhaktivedanta, but he received this name after I did. I’m senior to him in this regard… I’m Bhaktivedanta, and I’m also ISKCON. Don’t think that I’m out of ISKCON.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)

But according to Srila Prabhupada:

“I am the founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”
(Srila Prabhupada letter to Dr. Bigelow, Allahabad, January 20th, 1971)

Narayana Maharaja Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 1)

Although he claims to be a successor to Srila Prabhupada, and that Srila Prabhupada is somehow speaking through him, it should be noted that Narayana Maharaja’s teachings often seriously differ from Srila Prabhupada’s. This is what Narayana Maharaja has to say about Prahlada Maharaja, who is worshipped on every altar throughout ISKCON as a completely pure devotee of Krishna:

“Prahlada Maharaja was a very bona fide bhakta, and he never wanted anything worldly, but he could not serve Krsna. His bhakti was mixed with jnana, knowledge of the Lord’s opulence. If you have some worldly desire, or any desire, then your bhakti may be sanga-siddha bhakti or aropa-siddha bhakti, but not pure transcendental bhakti”
(Narayana Maharaja, Hawaii, February 17th, 2001)

Yet Srila Prabhupada’s verdict is very different:

“Prahlada Maharaja is the topmost example of a Vaisnava”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.21.47, purport)

“So we see practically how Prahlada Maharaja immediately attained the state of prema… he first of all followed the instruction of Brahma, then immediately he got the favor of Lord Nrsimhadeva, and after getting that he got the prema state.”
(Srila Prabhupada lecture, Mayapur, February 14th, 1976)

“Consequently, instead of accepting the results of karma and jnana, Prahlada Maharaja simply begged the Lord for engagement in the service of His servant.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.25)

Above we see Prahlada Maharaja described as a pure devotee who actually shunned the results of jnana (knowledge).

Narayana Mahara Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 2)

Narayana Maharaja claims that Advaita Acarya (one of the associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) was incapable of giving people Vraja-Bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna):

“Sri Advaita Acarya…He is a part of the part of the part of the part of Krishna. Being so far away, He can preach with kirtana, but He cannot give Vraja-bhakti. Never. He is not qualified for this. Only Krishna can do this.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, California May 31, 2000)

Contrast the above with the following verse from the Sri Caitanya caritamrta as presented by Srila Prabhupada:

“He (Advaita Acharya) delivered all living beings by offering the gift of Krishna-bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna). He explained Bhagavadgita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of devotional service.”
(Srila Prabhupada, Caitanya caritamrita, Adi-lila 6.28)

Thus Narayana Maharaja again disagrees with the siksa (instruction) given by Srila Prabhupada, even though he also rather immodestly claims to be his “dearmost siksa disciple”. (There are more examples of such contradictions on the back page of this magazine).

“He ordered me, ‘Help my disciples’ [...] You can get that cassette.[...] If anyone does not have belief in my statements, he can acquire and hear the cassette. At the time he spoke in Bengali so that others would not understand.”
(Salt Spring Island, Canada, April 2001, pm)

This claim is based on Srila Prabhupada stating “you kindly instruct them on this matter” to Narayana Maharaja, during a Bengali conversation spoken between the two sometime in October-November 1977.

However, as will be seen from the full translation of this conversation provided by the Narayana Maharaja camp themselves, Srila Prabhupada does not say anything of the sort. Whilst reading the relevant portion of the conversation below, please pay special attention to whom the word “them” in the above sentence refers to; what was the “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to give instruction; and “when” this instruction was meant to be given:

Srila Prabhupada: Are any of my god-brothers in Vrindavana now?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes.
Srila Prabhupada: Who?
Narayana Maharaja: Van Maharaja might be there, as well as Indupati Prabhu from Caitanya Gaudiya Matha.
Srila Prabhupada: Any more?
Narayana Maharaja: Only these two at the moment.
Srila Prabhupada: Who is Indupati?
Narayana Maharaja: He comes here often.
Bhakticaru Swami: From Madhava Maharaja’s matha?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes. No one else is here.
Srila Prabhupada: Please call both of them. Van Maharaja and him.
Narayana Maharaja: This is very good proposal by you.
Srila Prabhupada: Please sit down. They will call them.
Narayana Maharaja: All right.
Srila Prabhupada: This cutting of arguments happens sometimes…
Narayana Maharaja: These are insignificant matters in such a substantial worldwide mission. A little something here and there is of no consequence. You have done this wonderful preaching work for the benefit of the whole world. There was no self-interest. You did everything only in devotional service to Krsna for benefiting all people at large.
Srila Prabhupada: It is all by your blessings.
Narayana Maharaja: You have done a wonderful thing. It is necessary to care for and preserve this mission, and see that it is managed skilfully.
Srila Prabhupada: You kindly instruct them on this matter. I’m unable to speak.

When we see the sentence in context, those three aspects become clarified:

1) The word “them” refers to Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers who were to arrive shortly, not to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The word “them” comes twice before the final sentence,and both times it refers to his Godbrothers, Indupati Prabhu and Van Maharaja.

2) The “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to instruct his Godbrothers was that they forgive him for any “cutting of arguments” he may have done in the course of his preaching.

3) And “when” was this instruction to be given? There and then. Immediately after Srila Prabhupada asks Narayana Maharaja to give in struction he states: “I’m unable to speak”. This is the reason he is asking Narayana Maharaja to make these points to his Godbrothers on his behalf when they arrive.

So here we clearly see a false claim made by Narayana Maharaja to promote his agenda as being the “real successor” to Srila Prabhupada.

In conclusion, on the basis of all the above, it is clear from Narayana Maharaja’s OWN WORDS that he is not simply a “dearmost siksa disciple” of Srila Prabhupada whose aim is to help to bring us closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Rather he is no different to the 80 wannabe “successor Gurus” of ISKCON, doing and saying whatever is necessary to jockey for Srila Prabhupada’s position.

Narayana Maharaja Claims He is Srila Prabhupada's Successor

In a recent interview, Narayana Maharaja, one of the members of the Gaudiya Matha who has been visiting ISKCON communities to capitalise on the current joker-Guru program that ISKCON offers, openly stated the following:

"I am not his uttama adhikari (successor). Actually I am. Those who are falling down are his successors outwardly, but spiritually and transcendentally I am his successor."
(Narayana Maharaja, Interview quoted on the Gaudiya Matha website, VNN)

For those of you who thought that Narayana Maharaja was only visiting ISKCON to 'help', we have clear proof here that he intends to do a lot more than just 'help' - rather he wishes to help himself. He is revealing here his ambition to try and take the fruits of Srila Prabhupada's work, and be another competitor to the current pack of jokers who are also claiming that they are Srila Prabhupada's successors, and who as Maharaja has correctly pointed out, are usually 'falling down'. However we have news for him and the other 'pretenders to the throne' currently acting as 'successors' within ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada is not going anywhere soon - infact at least not for the next 10,000 years. He never left. So before announcing to us that you are a 'successor', please note the 'NO VACANCY' sign in the window.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle.Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will...Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there.(SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico)

Yet Srila Prabhupada had to the following to say about 'Srila Bon Maharaja':

"Still he is so envious, black snake."(Room Conversation, 16/10/75)

For many more difference between the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja. Thus these differences alone prove that whatever elevated qualities Maharaja may possess, one thing he definitely is NOT, is the 'successor' to Srila Prabhupada, for what sort of a 'successor' is it that teaches the complete OPPOSITE to Srila Prabhupada?

Narayana Maharaja Confused About Ritvik

Narayana Maharaja (NM) has given a lecture which is supposed to be "A Response To The Ritvik System". Unfortunately rather than being a RESPONSE to the Ritvik System, it is actually nothing but a FABRICATION about the Ritvik system, wherein Narayana Maharaja has only presented his imagination regarding the IRM's presentation of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the Ritvik system.

We will quote portions of his lecture below enclosed in speech marks thus " ", with our comments following underneath enclosed in parentheses, thus [ ]. The lecture was delivered by Narayana Maharaja on July 19th, 2001, in Polansk, Russia. The transcript of the lecture was typed and edited by Sripad Krishna Bhajana dasa Brahmacari, and proofread by Srimati Premavati devi dasi.

"Those who think, "There is no need to accept a guru as a mediator because we can chant the holy name, we can read books, and we can do arcana and sadhana simply by the rtvik system," are not within the guru-parampara. They deceive others. They are actually cheaters; not bhaktas."

Of course no one except NM has ever even proposed this. The Ritvik system is DEFINED as accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Guru who mediates. Thus the only person doing the 'deceiving and 'cheating' here is NM.

"Nowhere in the sastra is it written that a rtvik can ever give bhakti. This can never be the case. "

Nowhere has it ever been claimed by anyone that the 'Ritvik gives Bhakti'. Those who accept the Ritvik system receive Bhakti from the self-realised Guru, Srila Prabhupada.

"They say that in this world there are no pure devotees, and therefore there are no pure devotees to initiate anyone. This idea is very, very wrong and it is against the principles of bhakti."

No we do not say this. In "The Final Order" we actually state the opposite. There maybe many pure devotees. But this does not change the fact that Srila Prabhupada established the Ritvik system for ISKCON. Thus NM's idea is 'very, very wrong' and it goes against the principles of actual Ritvik system as given by Srila Prabhupada.

"Beware of this rtvik system. Without a self-realized guru you cannot achieve bhakti in thousands of births. This is an established truth. This is siddhanta. You should therefore accept a sad-guru, serve him, and try to follow his instructions. Then you can develop your Krishna consciousness and all of your anarthas will disappear. Otherwise, it will never be possible for pure bhakti to come and touch your heart and senses."

Since the Ritvik system actually ENABLES one to 'accept, serve and follow the instructions of the self-realised sad guru', it is clear that one must 'beware of NM', for he is teaching the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. Otherwise 'it will never be possible for pure understanding to come and touch your heart and senses'.

"I would like to clarify one thing. I am not saying that all rtviks mislead others. Only those who say that there is no need of a guru do so. Real rtviks know all sastras, and all of them have gurus. A rtvik cannot be a rtvik without accepting a real guru."

Since a Ritvik is DEFINED as someone who accepts Srila Prabhupada, it is NM who is again misleading us by positing the existence of a non-existent entity.

"Nowadays, therefore, those who call themselves rtviks are all cheaters, and we should beware of them."

Here NM contradicts himself. He had JUST said that he is: "NOT saying that ALL rtviks mislead others." Here he says that: "Ritviks are ALL cheaters".

"There are so many gurus: caitya-guru, diksa-guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, and others. Why go to a bogus-rtvik guru? If our siksa-gurus are Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Nityananda prabhu, and Radhika, why do we need to go to these rtviks?"

Since Ritviks accept all these same 'Gurus, and do NOT accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order"), since all the Ritvik does is perform a ceremony on behalf of the Real Guru - Srila Prabhupada - the actual conclusion is why do we 'need to go to NM', since he states nothing EXCEPT the actual OPPOSITE of the facts.

"This word 'rt' has come from the word 'Rg-Veda.' Those who know all Vedas, including the Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Veda, all the Upanishads, and all the Puranas, are actually rtvik. [...] (There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice). [...] After deliberation upon the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas, it becomes obvious that rtviks have nothing to do with the supreme transcendental goal...'Rtau yajtiti rtviki.' One who conducts sacrifices according to Vedic mantras is called a rtvik. There is an arrangement of 16 types of rtviks to perform the sacrifices."

This is massive contradiction by NM. Earlier in an interview that he had given to the ISKCON Journal in 1990, NM had claimed that: I have not seen the word "ritvik" in our Vaisnava dictionary. (…) We have seen no such word as "ritvik".
(Narayana Maharaja Interview, ISKCON Journal, Page 23)

Now NM wants to enlighten us how the word Ritvik not only exists, but how he has seen it in many places from the Vedas to Srila Prabhupada's books!

"I think, however, that these modern rtviks don't even know the ABC's of the Vedas. [...] There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice. Even when the word used is 'rtvikacarya,' it is still defined as a priest performing a fire sacrifice for a secular gain."

The word 'ritvik-acarya' is NEVER used in Srila Prabhupada's books. It seems it is NM who does not know the ABC's of Srila Prabhupada's books.

"Those who advocate the rtvik system are misleaders, and their followers are misled. Do not go towards the rtvik system. In none of the sastras has it been said that this rtvik system will give bhakti. Be careful regarding the bogus rtvik system. [...] You should give up the idea that the rtviks can help. They can never help you. They have never even helped themselves, so how can they help others?"

As we have conclusively shown above via NM's numerous false statements and contradictions, it is NM who is the misleader, who is misleading all his followers regarding the IRM's advocation of the Ritvik system. Thus one must 'be careful regarding the bogus understanding of the Ritvik system' given by NM, and give up the idea that NM can help us regarding understanding the true facts about Srila Prabhupada's instructions regarding the ritvik system.

Any hope that this was simply a one-off aberration on the part of Maharaja is dashed by the fact that he has also repeated similar nonsensical statements in a magazine containing 6 of his essays called: “The True Conception of Sri Guru Tattva". Below we analyse some of these statements. Statements made by NM in the aforementioned magazine shall be enclosed in a blue tinted panel, with our comments following underneath in bold text.

“So in the tradition of our sampradaya there is a provision for Diksa- guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, patha-pradarsaka-guru, caitya-guru and so on. But we will not find any statement in the scriptures which recommends accepting a ‘rtvik-guru’ or the rtvik tradition in order to perform one’s sadhana of paramartha (the highest transcendental goal).”

Nor will we find any statement from the IRM or “The Final Order” (TFO – the IRM’s position paper) proposing the same. No one has ever proposed that one accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order") as an alternative to accepting a Diksa Guru in order to perform one’s sadhana. Rather a ritvik priest is simply someone who officiates on behalf of the Diksa Guru when the initiation is being performed. Thus NM is presenting here a classic ‘straw-man argument’ – this is an argumentative device in which one attacks a position not held by one’s adversary and defeats this false position as an alternative to addressing the adversary’s real position, which one is unable to defeat.

“Thus, at the current time, some people put forward the idea that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj was the last sad-guru, and after his disappearance there is no longer a sad-guru present in the world, nor will there be one in the future.”

This is again another ‘straw-man argument’. “The Final Order” offers no opinion on the state of the world. It merely states what was the system of initiation established by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON. And this, as established by his July 9th 1977 directive, was to have him as the initiating Guru for ISKCON.

“Therefore, after his disappearance there is not need for anyone to accept any living guru because rtviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession) and they will give Diksa only by utilizing the cassette recordings of his own voice chanting the gayatri-mantras. This conception is completely speculative and is against the injunctions of the scriptures.”

It is the above statement which is completely speculative. Firstly no one, except NM’s fertile imagination it seems, has ever proposed that the ‘ritviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession)’. Rather it is Srila Prabhupada who will carry forward the parampara as its current link. For parampara is NOT defined as the existence of a ‘physically present body’, but as the following:

“Parampara means to hear the truth from the spiritual master”.

(Room Conversation, 20/12/76)

“Parampara means they do not change the word of Krishna. That is parampara”.

(SB lecture, 11/8/74)

Srila Prabhupada is still giving us this truth and is not changing the word of Krishna. In this way HE is continuing the parampara, not ‘ritviks’.

Secondly in the July 9th directive Srila Prabhupada authorises representatives to give first and second initiation just as it was being done when Srila Prabhupada himself was physically accepting disciples, and this involved extensive use of ‘cassette recordings’ of Srila Prabhupada chanting the gayatri mantra.

“To say, ‘There is no sad-guru living in the world at present and neither will there be any in the future", is an atheistic opinion.”

Of course no one, except NM’s imagination has proposed such a thing. The position of TFO relates only to what Srila Prabhupada ordained for ISKCON, not what may or may not happen in every nook or cranny of the planet from now till the end of time.

“Some people talk about accepting Diksa through the medium of the audio cassettes of great personalities after they have disappeared. There are various flaws in this ideology. Before giving Diksa, a guru examines the characteristics, thoughts, intentions, and so on of the aspiring candidate. Similarly, for some period of time, the aspirant will also observe the gurutva (greatness), conduct, bhajana and attitude of his guru. When both of them are satisfied, then only is there an arrangement to give and to accept Diksa. This process is not possible through cassettes once the guru is no longer physically present.”

This process was also not possible through cassettes when Srila Prabhupada was physically present, since Srila Prabhupada second initiated the vast majority of his disciples via the medium of his audio recordings, having never met most of them. Thus NM is here directly attacking both the system by which Srila Prabhupada gave initiation when he was on the planet, and the system Srila Prabhupada set up for initiations to continue in ISKCON. NM’s contention that there is a ‘flaw in the ideology’ of using audio cassettes to give Diksa after the disappearance of the Guru thus applies equally to the use of audio cassettes even whilst Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, since even in the latter case mutual examination between Guru and disciple did not take place in the majority of cases. For as already stated Srila Prabhupada used this ‘cassette’ system to give second initiation to the vast majority of his disciples without having ever met them. Thus NM is saying therefore that there is a flaw in Srila Prabhupada’s ideology, since it is a proven fact that this is the system he used.

“It is not possible for the cassette to examine the aspirant before giving Diksa, and neither is it possible for the aspirant to observe the greatness, conduct and mode of bhajana of the guru though the medium of cassettes alone.”

NM again re-affirms that his criticism applies equally to the use of cassette recordings by Srila Prabhupada even whilst he was on the planet, since the above process of mutual examination between Guru and disciple was not undertaken in the majority of cases where Srila Prabhupada gave initiation. This is a new departure for NM in that he is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s conduct directly, implying that all those disciples of Srila Prabhupada who received second initiation by hearing the gayatri mantra on the cassette tape without having met Srila Prabhupada, which was the vast majority of them, were not correctly initiated. It may only be a matter of time therefore, before NM takes the further bold step of ‘re-initiating’ all the second initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were incorrectly initiated via the ‘cassette tape’. This is the logical implication of his criticism of the method via which Srila Prabhupada gave second initiation.

“From the history of our sampradaya, it is well known that Krsna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa was a perfected saint or guru of Dvarpara-yuga. But yet his sat-sisya, Srila Madhvacarya, had direct darsana of Srila Vedavyasa who had appeared about 5000 years prior to him. Despite being so qualified, Srila Madhvacarya never thought he could become the disciple of Srila Vedavyasa without the latter’s physical presence.”

Yet the vast majority of Srila Prabhpada’s disciples became his disciples without ever receiving his ‘direct darsana’ or experiencing his ‘physical presence’. Thus Srila Prabhupada himself proved by his direct example that there is no link between becoming a disciple and associating physically with the Guru. Why is NM trying so hard to prove the opposite and thus try to prove that there was a ‘flaw’ in the way Srila Prabhupada initiated his disciples?

“For the common people, the process of accepting Diksa is to directly receive krsna-mantra from a sad-guru who knows krsna-tattva. But in the case of uttama-adhikaris, the example of bhagvata parampara is visible everywhere. Hence, it is not a proven fact that the cassette is a bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa.”

Yet Srila Prabhupada established through his world institution ISKCON that the COMMON method for the common people to receive Diksa was without his physical presence and via the cassette recording. Thus again NM is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s method of conducting initiations by stating that Srila Prabhupada did not give his initiations via a ‘bona fide and effective medium’.

“If, in modern times, in special circumstances a guru has given Diksa through his representative or through cassette, this still cannot be accepted as the ultimate principle for everyone at all times and in all places. A guru may give Diksa through the medium of his representative or cassette to a faithful person who is living in a remote place, and cannot personally come before his guru due to circumstances. But this is a temporary situation arising out of extreme circumstances only. Whenever it is possible, the guru will himself personally give Diksa.”

Here NM contradicts himself. Previously he had stated that giving initiation via a cassette was an ideology which had ‘flaws’ because the Guru and disciple could not examine each other, and was NOT a ‘bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa’. Now he claims it is acceptable when the disciple is not able to come before the Guru due to circumstances. Then the Guru’s representative or cassette CAN give initiation. Which is exactly what the Ritvik position states. This principle that NM has enunciated here is applicable whether the Guru is on the planet or not. Whenever the Guru is not present, either by being somewhere else on the planet or in the universe, the disciple is unable to come before him and he can receive initiation via a representative or cassette. The key point according to NM is only that the Disciple is faithful and he is unable to come before the Guru due to his circumstances. So in another flip-flop contradiction, NM is endorsing the ritvik system he is supposed to be attacking.

“Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami has neither accepted nor mentioned the tradition of rtviks as gurus anywhere in his bona fide books. Nor did he support the tradition of rtviks in his personal letters. Whatever Srila Swami Maharaj arranged, it was definitely not ‘rtvik-guru’, which is a contradiction of terms. To call it this is the cause of embarrassment for him among those who know the Vedic sastras. If any of his disciples have anywhere, on the pretext of his name, made such a declaration, then after the word ‘rtvik’, must be added the statement, ‘the representative of guru’.”

Neither has anyone else accepted the tradition of ‘ritviks as Gurus’. The Ritvik position IS that Ritvik means ‘representative of Guru’ as defined in the July 9th directive. Why NM is wasting his time defeating one ‘straw-man’ argument after another is baffling. He should at least make some attempt to learn about what he supposed to be talking about. Otherwise he should simply stay quiet, lest he ends up revealing his great ignorance on the subject, just as he has continually done here.

“And it must be understood that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis.”

Understood according to whom, that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis? NM has not presented one word from Guru, sadhu or sastra to back up this speculation of his.

“Therefore the sadhaka of suddha-bhakti, after thoroughly deliberating on these facts, must not neglect the principles of guru-parampara. If there is any doubt, then it is necessary to remove it by accepting the correct understanding of guru-parampara. One must accept the innermost thoughts or intentions of the guru, otherwise one will be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”

Yes one MUST accept the correct understanding of Guru-parampara and accept the intentions of the Guru. These intentions of Srila Prabhupada are given by him in the July 9th directive, and his many teachings that parampara simply means transmitting the knowledge of Krishna without change, which Srila Prabhupada continues to do even today. Any assertions to the contrary as given herein by NM, will indeed lead us to “be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”

“In consideration of this principle, can it be conjectured that a guru, being ignorant of the Diksa mantras and their conceptions, will appoint a rtvik more qualified than himself, who in turn will give Diksa to others, thus acting as the representative of the guru? Some people say that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja appointed rtviks who were to give Diksa to his disciples.”

No one except NM is conjecturing this. No one has ever proposed that the Diksa Guru appoints a Ritvik who is more qualified than him to give Diksa to others. For the umpteenth time - how much simpler can one make it – the Diksa Guru gives Diksa – the ritvik simply assists in conducting the initiation formalities. Thus NM presents yet another ludicrous ‘straw-man’ argument further revealing his gross ignorance of the subject.

“If this statement is accepted as true, then it means they are accusing Srila Swami Maharaj of being an unqualified guru, and ignorant yajman who, for the sake of fulfilling his material desires or perfection in spiritual life, would have appointed rtviks more qualified than himself. No, it cannot be true, for this is completely impossible. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions.”

No one is accusing Srila Prabhupada of this. Only NM’s fertile imagination is able to conjure up such useless notions, due to his poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject at hand. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception as given by NM is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions, and also a gross mis-representation of the actual position advocated by the IRM.

Conclusion

As well as seeing yet again NM’s gross ignorance of the subject he is supposed to be enlightening us on, he has also revealed some more of his traits. He is very keen to undermine Srila Prabhupada by attacking the initiation methodology he employed. This merely reveals his lack of understanding of Guru tattva, since he incorrectly thinks that Diksa is not bona fide if given by an audio recording. The reality however, as demonstrated by Srila Prabhupada, is that Diksa is always bona fide as long as the Guru has authorised the system via which Diksa is given. And finally we have also seen that NM has infected himself with the GBC disease of contradicting himself. Self-contradiction is a common ailment when one does not have a consistent and coherent philosophy, but instead speaks due to a mixture of speculation and ignorance.

In conclusion, we see yet again how the ideology of NM regarding Guru tattva is at complete odds with that presented by Srila Prabhupada, and those who claim to be loyal and faithful to Srila Prabhupada should not continue to be in ignorance of this fact. Thank You.